Multiple target engagement

[Guest IguanaKing]

The AWG-9 could track 6 targets simultaneously at ranges in excess of 73 nm (a little over 117 km), and it was first fielded over 30 years ago. It also had the advantage, along with the AIM-54A, of being proven in combat on several occasions. That was just the export version. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

with SARH missiles, you have to wait untill the first missile hit for the next one to swich from datalink into guided mode. I.E. you cant ripple the missiles any way you want but rather in a way to guide a single missile at a time.

There are multiple false statements here, however, I will just focus on MiG-31 R-33 SARH missile. Actually, you should just check the excellent Lock On manual pages 121 to 123.

True multi target capability sends all missiles to their targets in TWS without compromises except the radars own viewcone, and all missiles can swich to guided mode at any time because they are active.

If this is how “true multi target capability” works, how does other (false!?) multi target capabilities work? Where did you find the term “true multi target capability”?

[Guest IguanaKing]

There's effectively no burn-through for mainlobe jamming, wether you like it or not.

 

Sure there is, but you've already died by the time that range is reached, so its a moot point. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

GGTharos and IguanaKing,

 

I do not disagree with you. I am not trying to get into a discussion on which radar system is better. This thread is about multi targeting capabilities of Russian fighter aircraft. And are they currently in SERVICE or not.

 

Pilotasso claimed there was none. I provided facts that there is at least one. Now it looks like there is more than just MiG-31. HINT: Lock On manual page 115.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hajduk, Pilotasso was premature in his assumption...let's not run it into the ground shall we? Would you like me to keep bringing up your "soldiers on foodstamps" thing, or should I just say you spoke prematurely and made a mistake? ;) I choose the latter. Everybody makes technical mistakes, including me, you, and Pilotasso. Come on, dude, just let your personal thing against Pilotasso go. Life's too short to be so locked on to an individual you don't even know. :beer:

[TucksonSonny]

The R-33 itself is purely an anti-bomber missile, and from what I hear its performance against fighters is far worse than that of the AIM-54C+/ECCM/SEALED (which is in fact capable of intercepting supersonic, maneuvering, JAMMING anti-ship missiles).

 

 

…far worse than the AIM-54C ?

 

And the AIM-54C was already that worse (the only kill(s) in RL-war were not even made by the NAVY:D )

This is in big contrast with the lomac AIM-54C, anyway.

[TucksonSonny]

Well you can shot R-27ET first, and R-27ER after :)

 

Of the present soviet crafts in LO, only MiG-29C is capable to engage multiple target, but it wasn't done in LO.

 

Why would you fire a short range forget missile before a long range ER?

On top of that you can’t put the enemy in defense with that ET because he even doesn’t know it was fired at him.

[Guest IguanaKing]

…far worse than the AIM-54C ?

 

And the AIM-54C was already that worse (the only kill(s) in RL-war were not even made by the NAVY:D )

 

This is in big contrast with the lomac AIM-54C, anyway.

 

Yes, the only combat kills were made by the export version of the AIM-54A...and there were quite a few of them. Oh...I'm sorrry...did I NOT mention the proven success of the export version of the AWG-9 and AIM-54A? Here you go, Sonny.

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

 

I'll be waiting for those R-33 kill stats. Well...not really...since I'd be waiting for nothing.

[nscode]

Since no coutry tried to nuke russia :)

 

Counting long range kills against MiG-21 as a kill againts a fighter isn't that informative as it had no way of knowing there even was a missile fiered at him considering SPO-10 (and even it was absent on some versions I belive).

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hmmm...comparing an "unfair kill" to none at all for its counterpart. Again I am stunned by double-standards. It sounds a bit like saying the F-15 is overrated because it only attained its >100:0 kill ratio against export versions of Russian aircraft being operated by poorly trained and equipped air forces...but the Su-30MKI can kick its ass, and the scripted exercises at Cope India are proof of that. :megalol:

 

BTW...nobody was trying to nuke Iran either. ;)

[nscode]

:closedeyes: there you go again...

 

There's no such thing as an "unfair" kill. We're just discussing missile performance. If someone decided to try his R-55 against AIM-54 that's his problem. But anyone trying his 54 against a good manouvaring target that knows it's being launched is going to have a problem too. And it's not something that needs to be pointed out. I'm just saying that looking at those kills as something disprooving that fact is a misassumption.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Life's too short to be so locked on to an individual you don't even know. :beer:

Well, I will not quote names any more. You see, name is not here. And I do take your comment as a good will comment. And I thank you for it.

 

Mister X was stating that no current fighter in service with Russian Air Force (RAF) has multi targeting capabilities. Then you, other members and I provided fact to the opposite and Mister X continued with building upon his incorrect assumptions and statements. I will leave Mister X’s name out of my future posts on this thread.

 

Well, Lock On Manual page 115, shows at list one additional airplane other then MiG-31 that has multi targeting capability. That is MiG-29S. And MiG-29S is currently in the service with RAF.

[nscode]

Yes, but it's capability is not "tr00"

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, but it's capability is not "tr00"

:music_whistling: :beer:

[Guest IguanaKing]

:closedeyes: there you go again...

 

There's no such thing as an "unfair" kill. We're just discussing missile performance. If someone decided to try his R-55 against AIM-54 that's his problem. But anyone trying his 54 against a good manouvaring target that knows it's being launched is going to have a problem too. And it's not something that needs to be pointed out. I'm just saying that looking at those kills as something disprooving that fact is a misassumption.

 

 

There I go again? You don't know if those IrAF pilots received a warning. You don't know if they were maneuvering either. As for the rest...I simply provided the link to show that the AIM-54 has been successfully used in combat against an ACTUAL enemy...while the R-33 has not. I still fail to see how speculation about its "inability" overrides statistical evidence.

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

Well, Lock On Manual page 115, shows at list one additional airplane other then MiG-31 that has multi targeting capability. That is MiG-29S. And MiG-29S is currently in the service with RAF.

 

Yup...the MiG-29S is also quite a capable multi-engagement platform. BTW...if the current version of the Flanker weren't the same way...it'd be an awful waste of such a beautiful aircraft. :smilewink: She's got a chunky butt, but the rest of her sure is sexy. :D

[Poopskadoop]

Yup...the MiG-29S is also quite a capable multi-engagement platform. BTW...if the current version of the Flanker weren't the same way...it'd be an awful waste of such a beautiful aircraft. :smilewink: She's got a chunky butt, but the rest of her sure is sexy. :D

 

Chunky butt? IMO, only the Su-33 has a chunky butt because of the reshaped tail cone. The rear view is one of my favorite aspects of the Su-27. I like the "stinger" look that it has going on and the engine nozzles seem appealing to me as well.

 

The ugliest Russian aircraft ever produced would have to be the T-4. Second place goes to the dual-seat variant of the MiG-25.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Nope, I'm talking about the whole tail section on the Mig-29 and Su-27 series...they look like the frontal armor of a tank. Its not necessarily a bad thing though. They actually remind me a bit of the Hornet...she may not be the hottest girl on the block, but she'd spend a week in the woods with you and not cry about not having a place to plug in her curling iron. Her front end is what got you interested in the first place, so, if she can hang...she's a keeper. Sorry for the double entendre. :D

[FVMAD]

Why would you fire a short range forget missile before a long range ER?

 

mb I will, who knows... lol

that was only an example of "multiengage"

 

On top of that you can’t put the enemy in defense with that ET because he even doesn’t know it was fired at him.

 

so, he'll be quicker dead :)

[Pilotasso]

There are multiple false statements here, however, I will just focus on MiG-31 R-33 SARH missile. Actually, you should just check the excellent Lock On manual pages 121 to 123.

If this is how “true multi target capability” works, how does other (false!?) multi target capabilities work? Where did you find the term “true multi target capability”?

 

 

I read the manual and it says litle new things to me but what I already said.

The text still doesnt say all SARH missiles can be ripled any way the pilot wishes. And As I stated if you fire more than one missile without timing its guided mode, the missile might face not one but several reflections of targets.

Thus despite the Radar Zaslon be able to target as many as 4 targets, the missile must not face more reflections than the target intended. I would guess that the second missile would be launched when the first is half way to target and when the last missiles guets its turn to be guided, by then the other targets should be either destroyed or out of that missiles viewcone.

 

The implications is that you must get closer to target in order to fire more than one missile. This is also part of the reason while the Foxhound had data link system so that every plane in the formation would share the target load so that no plane would have to fire 4 in one go and be forced to wait untill the last missiles guides (i.e, keep facing target or at least F poling).

 

With western systems you can fire all 4 at once, they can go active, each facing its target in those last seconds because they do not require sharing the launcher aircraft radar guidance cue (as I think I made myself understand, independently of the radar multi target tracl capability).

 

Optimum tactic I estimate to be: Fire 1 or 2 missiles max at a time, F-pole, or let another aircraft in the formation further back handle those missiles (if that is technicaly possible) then that aircraft would fire its own and let the first one have its turn to take over those missiles.

 

PS this post is not inteded for confrotation; i can accept disagreements, I could be mistaken about my assumptions but I do not see how can you fire 4 SARH missiles with 4 tagets in their viewcones. As GG says they should be time shared.

[Poopskadoop]

Nope, I'm talking about the whole tail section on the Mig-29 and Su-27 series...they look like the frontal armor of a tank. Its not necessarily a bad thing though. They actually remind me a bit of the Hornet...she may not be the hottest girl on the block, but she'd spend a week in the woods with you and not cry about not having a place to plug in her curling iron. Her front end is what got you interested in the first place, so, if she can hang...she's a keeper. Sorry for the double entendre. :D

 

:lol:

 

Yes, yes, I can agree with the Hornet, but to me the whole tail section of the Su-27 seems sexy as well. The thing I don't like about the Hornet is the rounded elevators, but the Su-27 has nice, clean, angular ones. The fins are perfect; in fact, everything about the Su-27's asthetics is perfect.

 

Odd... any onlooker who didn't have a passion for aircraft would think it strange to use such terms as "sexy" when describing a piece of flying equipment.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I read the manual and it says litle new things to me but what I already said.

Page 122, 2nd and 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph …

 

The text still doesnt say all SARH missiles can be ripled any way the pilot wishes.

The second and third sentence, quote:

“such a radar provides very rapid steering of the beam in addition to simultaneous targeting missiles using semi-active seekers.”

End of quote.

 

Also, please take a look at the page 115, Figure 3, the very last field of the 2nd column. Quote:

“The number of simultaneously attacked targets: 4”

 

I rest my case.

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

PS this post is not inteded for confrotation; i can accept disagreements, I could be mistaken about my assumptions but I do not see how can you fire 4 SARH missiles with 4 tagets in their viewcones. As GG says they should be time shared.

 

The MiG-31 radar is PESA though, so it can do it much easier than a mechnically scanned radar. It might not be enough to target maneuvering, small targets, like fighters...but the MiG-31 was never really intended for that purpose. If I were to speculate though, the MiG-31 and its missiles might, possibly, exceed what was expected of their design...much like the F-14 did.

 

Poopskadoop, I am around Hornets almost every day and I don't really even notice the shape of the elevators. The drooped TEFs along with the burnt actuator covers is what gets me every time. Not to mention the paint job on the skin...this is a babe with plenty of battle scars. As for the uninitiated not understanding "sexy" as it relates to aircraft...that was the first thing my step-mom said of the SR-71 as it flew over our house in 1989. She didn't care at all about airplanes, but she still said "Wow!!! That sure is sexy! What kind of plane is that again?"

[D-Scythe]

The MiG-31 radar is PESA though, so it can do it much easier than a mechnically scanned radar. It might not be enough to target maneuvering, small targets, like fighters...but the MiG-31 was never really intended for that purpose. If I were to sepculate though, the MiG-31 and its missiles might, possibly, exceed what was expected of their design...much like the F-14 did.

 

AFAIK, both PESA and mechanical radars lack the beam agility to designate 4 targets for attack with SARH missiles in an instantaneous manner - only AESA radars can direct multiple, fine radar beams from its antennae array AFAIK.

 

I do think that the MiG-31 uses time-sharing to attack targets simultaneously with multiple missiles (i.e. the designation of targets is not simultaneous, even though the attack is). Although its radar can't send out multiple radar pencil beams at once, it probably does have the agility to send out single radar beams very rapidly while hopping around separate channels.

 

So I guess, something like illuminating Target 1 for 0.1 seconds, on channel A, then moving onto Target 2 for another 0.1 seconds at channel B, etc. etc. until the radar cycles back to Target 1, channel A, 0.3 seconds later (in a 4 target engagement). Conceptually, that's how I think it works. Each missile, of course, would only react to its respective channel, so as not to confuse its target with that of another missile's.

 

So, Pilotasso is sorta right IMO in stating that it's not a "true" multiple-engagement capability (where all targets are designated/tracked simultaneously), but it effectively accomplishes the same thing with SARH missiles by virtue of a PESA radar. There is really no advantage to either method until the end-game phase, since in the "true" multiple engagement method the targets are also not designated tracked simultaneously in real-time (in the case of a mechanically steered radar like the APG-63 - an AESA radar can do whatever it wants ;) ). In the end-game, of course, the "true" multiple engagement method allows the launching aircraft to break lock and leave, since it utilizes ARH missiles. The PESA/R-33 combination cannot.

[Pilotasso]

What it does however is to mimimize this multi target method compromises because an electronic steered signals can swich between targets instantaneously. I think this is so because it is not convineint to present each SARH missile with 2 or more distint reflections to home on in.

 

The MiG-31 radar is PESA though, so it can do it much easier than a mechnically scanned radar.

 

Also, please take a look at the page 115, Figure 3, the very last field of the 2nd column. Quote:

“The number of simultaneously attacked targets: 4”

 

Thank you, I already had stated twice that it was an electronic steered radar and it could track 4 designated targets, your not showing me nothing new.

 

Page 122, 2nd and 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph …

 

The second and third sentence, quote:

“such a radar provides very rapid steering of the beam in addition to simultaneous targeting missiles using semi-active seekers.”

End of quote.

Targeting 4 is one thing, guide all 4 is something else, independently of the term simultaneous. As I was trying to tell you there is nothing there to suggest all 4 missiles could face all 4 targets in ilumination mode, because the missiles themselves are the limiting factor. They do not have discrimination capability, you iluminate one target, it goes after it, now give it 4 and wich one to guide to?

When the R-37 comes to service, that could be a different matter though, as all ARH missiles do not require specific guiding ilumination untill they go active, time wich they will be facing but just 1 reflection.

 

AFAIK, both PESA and mechanical radars lack the beam agility to designate 4 targets for attack with SARH missiles in an instantaneous manner - only AESA radars can direct multiple, fine radar beams from its antennae array AFAIK.

 

I do think that the MiG-31 uses time-sharing to attack targets simultaneously with multiple missiles (i.e. the designation of targets is not simultaneous, even though the attack is). Although its radar can't send out multiple radar pencil beams at once, it probably does have the agility to send out single radar beams very rapidly while hopping around separate channels.

 

 

So, Pilotasso is sorta right IMO in stating that it's not a "true" multiple-engagement capability (where all targets are designated/tracked simultaneously), but it effectively accomplishes the same thing with SARH missiles by virtue of a PESA radar. There is really no advantage to either method until the end-game phase, since in the "true" multiple engagement method the targets are also not designated tracked simultaneously in real-time (in the case of a mechanically steered radar like the APG-63 - an AESA radar can do whatever it wants ;) ). In the end-game, of course, the "true" multiple engagement method allows the launching aircraft to break lock and leave, since it utilizes ARH missiles. The PESA/R-33 combination cannot.

^^^^

Everything I wanted to tell but more complete, in better and simpler English.